Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America; August 1970; v. 60; no. 4; p. 1245-1258
© 1970 Seismological Society of America
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by LAHR, J.
Right arrow Articles by POMEROY, P. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

The foreshock-aftershock sequence of the March 20 1966 earthquake in the Republic of Congo

JOHN LAHR and PAUL W. POMEROY

LAMONT-DOHERTY GEOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, PALISADES, NEW YORK 10964
SEISMOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48104

Abstract

The activity associated with the Congo earthquake of March 20 1966 (mb = 6.5 to 7) was studied with emphasis on the time and magnitude distributions. The data were recorded at the Abéché, Chad, seismograph station operated by Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory. Over a period of about 70 days, 815 earthquakes with magnitude (mb) greater than or equal to 3.3 were recorded, and they form the basis for this study.

The aftershocks are distributed with magnitude (mb) according to the formula long n = a - bm with b = 1.05 ± 0.07 at the 95 per cent confidence limits. The foreshocks have b = 1.06 ± 0.35 at the 95 per cent confidence limits. These b values are in general agreement with b values derived from other aftershock sequences throughout the world.

Some authors have suggested that foreshocks may have a lower b value than background activity and that this difference might be used in earthquake prediction. In this paper, an evaluation is made of the limitations of this method of prediction. Assuming that such a difference in b values does exist, it is found that a closely spaced network of high-gain seismographs with wide dynamic range would be required to assure successful prediction.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
J.-H. Wang
On the correlation of observed Gutenberg-Richter's b value and Omori's p value for aftershocks
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1994; 84(6): 2008 - 2011.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
P. W. POMEROY, W. J. BEST, and T. V. MCEVILLY
Test ban treaty verification with regional data--A review
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1982; 72(6B): S89 - S129.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
A. MCGARR and R. W. E. GREEN
Microtremor sequences and tilting in a deep mine
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, December 1, 1978; 68(6): 1679 - 1697.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
A. MCGARR
Dependence of magnitude statistics on strain rate
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, February 1, 1976; 66(1): 33 - 44.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Bulletin of the Seismological Society of AmericaHome page
H. K. GUPTA, B. K. RASTOGI, and H. NARAIN
Some discriminatory characteristics of earthquakes near the Kariba, Kremasta, and Koyna artificial lakes
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, April 1, 1972; 62(2): 493 - 507.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1970 by the Seismological Society of America.